DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant amended claims 1, 9, and 15 in the amendment filed on 11/12/2025.
The claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
3. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/205884 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Application 18/205884 contain(s) every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claim(s) of the instant application. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim. “A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001). “Claim 12 and Claim 13 are generic to the species of invention covered by claim 3 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim). This court's predecessor has held that, without a terminal disclaimer, the species claims preclude issuance of the generic application. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761, 767 (CCPA 1982); Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer, claims 12 and 13 were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.” (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bragg et al (US Publication No. 2010/0207784 A1) in view of UHLING THOMAS et al (US Patent No. 11,689,339 B2).
With respect to claim 9, Bragg teaches a method for generating broadcast messages within a utility network (Abstract), comprising: generating a broadcast message, wherein the broadcast message includes one or more data packets associated with one or more utility devices (paragraph 0048-0051 disclose issuing a broadcast message that is meant to reach all meters 114 in the subnet 120); generating a header for the generated broadcast message, wherein the generated header includes data indicating applicability of the included one or more data packets with the one or more utility devices (paragraph 0048-0051 disclose the flood broadcast packet header contains information to prevent nodes from repeating the flood broadcast packet more than once per level. For example, within a flood broadcast message, a field might exist that indicates to meters/nodes which receive the message, the level of the subnet the message is located); and transmitting the generated message (paragraph 0048-0051 disclose propagating the broadcast message from the collector to the nodes/meters of the subnet 120).
Bragg does not explicitly disclose a device type of the one or more utility devices, wherein the device type is one of a battery powered utility device and a mains powered utility device.
However, Uhling Thomas teaches a device type of the one or more utility devices, wherein the device type is one of a battery powered utility device and a mains powered utility device (col. 34, lines 1-29; col. 5, line 56-col. 6, line 11; Fig. 1 disclose device type information element indicating whether the device type is a Limited Function Device (LFD) (battery powered device) or a Full Function Device (FFD) (mains powered device)) in order to selectively communicate information (col. 2, line 57- col. 3, line 13). Therefore, based on Bragg in view of Uhling Thomas, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Uhling Thomas to the system of Bragg in order to selectively communicate information.
With respect to claim 10, Bragg teaches wherein the data includes indications that the one or more data packets within the generated broadcast message are intended for a group of devices within the utility network (paragraph 0048-0051; 0103; 0110 disclose the flood broadcast packet header contains information to prevent nodes from repeating the flood broadcast packet more than once per level. For example, within a flood broadcast message, a field might exist that indicates to meters/nodes which receive the message, the level of the subnet the message is located).
With respect to claim 11, Bragg teaches wherein the data includes indications that the one or more data packets within the generated broadcast message are intended for constrained devices or unconstrained devices (paragraph 0048-0051; 0101 disclose the flood broadcast packet header contains information to prevent nodes from repeating the flood broadcast packet more than once per level. For example, within a flood broadcast message, a field might exist that indicates to meters/nodes which receive the message, the level of the subnet the message is located).
With respect to claim 12, Bragg teaches wherein the constrained devices are battery-powered devices (battery-powered meter reading devices (MRDs) as per paragraph 0009).
With respect to claim 13, Bragg teaches wherein the generated broadcast message includes a plurality of information regions, wherein the plurality of information regions include at least one selected from a group consisting of a common control region, a broadcast information region, a constrained device information region, a shared information region, and an unconstrained device information region (paragraph 0048-0051; 0077; 0101 disclose the flood broadcast packet header contains information to prevent nodes from repeating the flood broadcast packet more than once per level. For example, within a flood broadcast message, a field might exist that indicates to meters/nodes which receive the message, the level of the subnet the message is located).
With respect to claim 14, Bragg teaches wherein the common control region includes the header (paragraph 0048-0051; 0077; 0101 disclose the flood broadcast packet header contains information to prevent nodes from repeating the flood broadcast packet more than once per level. For example, within a flood broadcast message, a field might exist that indicates to meters/nodes which receive the message, the level of the subnet the message is located).
With respect to claim 15, Bragg teaches a method for analyzing broadcast messages at a utility device (Abstract), comprising: periodically transitioning from a first mode to a second mode (paragraph 0010-0012; 0105-0108 disclose the meter reading device transitioning from a sleep mode to a rouse mode); receiving a broadcast message via a communication module while in the second mode (paragraph 0048-0051 disclose issuing a broadcast message that is meant to reach all meters 114 in the subnet 120; paragraph 0048-0051 disclose the flood broadcast packet header contains information to prevent nodes from repeating the flood broadcast packet more than once per level. For example, within a flood broadcast message, a field might exist that indicates to meters/nodes which receive the message, the level of the subnet the message is located); analyzing a header of the received broadcast message to determine whether the received broadcast message includes one or more data packets within one or more information regions that are associated with a device type of the utility device (paragraph 0048-0051 disclose issuing a broadcast message that is meant to reach all meters 114 in the subnet 120; paragraph 0032; 0048-0051 disclose the flood broadcast packet header contains information to prevent nodes from repeating the flood broadcast packet more than once per level. For example, within a flood broadcast message, a field might exist that indicates to meters/nodes which receive the message, the level of the subnet the message is located); determining whether the received broadcast message is a relevant message in response to determining that the received broadcast message includes one or more data packets within one or more information regions associated with the device type of the utility device (paragraph 0048-0051; 0077; 0101 disclose the flood broadcast packet header contains information to prevent nodes from repeating the flood broadcast packet more than once per level. For example, within a flood broadcast message, a field might exist that indicates to meters/nodes which receive the message, the level of the subnet the message is located); and processing the received broadcast message in response to determining that the received broadcast message is a relevant broadcast message (paragraph 0048-0051; 0117 disclose a rouse mode in which the transceiver receives data via the licensed channel, a wake mode in which the meter reading device processes the data received via the licensed channel in the rouse mode).
Bragg does not explicitly disclose a device type of the one or more utility devices, wherein the device type is one of a battery powered utility device and a mains powered utility device.
However, Uhling Thomas teaches a device type of the one or more utility devices, wherein the device type is one of a battery powered utility device and a mains powered utility device (col. 34, lines 1-29; col. 5, line 56-col. 6, line 11; Fig. 1 disclose device type information element indicating whether the device type is a Limited Function Device (LFD) (battery powered device) or a Full Function Device (FFD) (mains powered device)) in order to selectively communicate information (col. 2, line 57- col. 3, line 13). Therefore, based on Bragg in view of Uhling Thomas, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Uhling Thomas to the system of Bragg in order to selectively communicate information.
With respect to claim 16, Bragg teaches wherein the first mode is a standby mode and the second mode is a receive mode (paragraph 0105; Fig. 5 disclose various modes of operation of a meter reading device (MRD) including a sleep state (standby mode) and wake state (receive mode)).
With respect to claim 17, Bragg teaches resuming operation in the first mode in response to determining that the received broadcast message is not a relevant broadcast message (paragraph 0106; 0110 disclose the meter reading device (MRD) returning to sleep state when received data does not match).
With respect to claim 18, Bragg teaches wherein the header includes one or more indications of which of the one or more information regions contain data packets associated with the device type of the utility device (paragraph 0032; 0048-0051; 0103; 0110 disclose the flood broadcast packet header contains information to prevent nodes from repeating the flood broadcast packet more than once per level. For example, within a flood broadcast message, a field might exist that indicates to meters/nodes which receive the message, the level of the subnet the message is located).
With respect to claim 19, Bragg teaches wherein the information regions include at least one selected from a group consisting of a broadcast information region, a constrained device information region, a shared device information region, and a constrained device information region (paragraph 0048-0051; 0077; 0101 disclose the flood broadcast packet header contains information to prevent nodes from repeating the flood broadcast packet more than once per level. For example, within a flood broadcast message, a field might exist that indicates to meters/nodes which receive the message, the level of the subnet the message is located).
With respect to claim 20, Bragg teaches wherein constrained devices are battery powered devices (battery-powered meter reading devices (MRDs) as per paragraph 0009).
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al (EP 2775265 A1) in view of Bragg et al (US Publication No. 2010/0207784 A1), and further in view of UHLING THOMAS et al (US Patent No. 11,689,339 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Yoshida teaches a utility device within a utility system (Fig. 9 disclose plurality of metering devices within a metering system), comprising: a power source (power supply source 7); a communication interface (transceiver 2); and one or more electronic processors (Fig. 1-2), wherein the one or more electronic processors are configured to: periodically transition from a standby mode to a receive mode (page 6, paragraph 0038 disclose a wake-up timer which is adapted to wake up the transceiver 2 periodically to receive frames F to be checked by the hardware accelerator circuit 6); monitor for a broadcast message while in the receive mode (page 7, paragraph 0031 disclose waking up the transceiver of the metering device periodically to receive frames transmitted via the wireless link);
receive the broadcast message via the communication interface while in the receive mode (page 7, paragraph 0031 disclose waking up the transceiver of the metering device periodically to receive frames transmitted via the wireless link); analyze a header of the received broadcast message to determine whether any data packets within the broadcast message are relevant
(page 7, paragraph 0032 disclose the hardware accelerator circuit 6 checking the data content within at least one header field of the received frame for a match according to preconfigured matching rule), wherein determining whether the data packets within the received broadcast message are relevant includes determining whether the received broadcast message includes one or more data packets within one or more information regions associated with a device type of the utility device (page 7, paragraph 0032 disclose the hardware accelerator circuit 6 checking the data content within at least one header field of the received frame for a match according to preconfigured matching rule including function code).
Yoshida does not explicitly disclose resume operation in the standby mode in response to determining that the received broadcast message does not include any relevant data packets.
However, Bragg teaches resume operation in the standby mode in response to determining that the received broadcast message does not include any relevant data packets (paragraph 0106; 0110 disclose the meter reading device (MRD) returning to sleep state when received data does not match) in order to provide battery power savings (paragraph 0112). Therefore, based on Yoshida in view of Bragg, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Bragg to the system of Yoshida in order to provide battery power savings.
Bragg does not explicitly disclose wherein the device type is one of a battery powered device and a mains powered device.
However, Uhling Thomas teaches wherein the device type is one of a battery powered device and a mains powered device (col. 34, lines 1-29; col. 5, line 56-col. 6, line 11; Fig. 1 disclose device type information element indicating whether the device type is a Limited Function Device (LFD) (battery powered device) or a Full Function Device (FFD) (mains powered device)) in order to selectively communicate information (col. 2, line 57- col. 3, line 13). Therefore, based on Bragg in view of Uhling Thomas, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Uhling Thomas to the system of Bragg in order to selectively communicate information.
With respect to claim 2, Yoshida teaches wherein the one or more electronic processors are further configured to process the broadcast message in response to determining that the broadcast message includes one or more relevant data packets (page 7, paragraph 0032 disclose the hardware accelerator circuit 6 checking the data content within at least one field of the plurality of fields within the received frame for a match according to preconfigured matching rule),.
With respect to claim 3, Yoshida teaches wherein the header includes one or more indications of which of the one or more information regions contain the one or more data packets associated with the device type of the utility device (page 7, paragraph 0032 disclose the hardware accelerator circuit 6 checking the data content within at least one field of the plurality of fields within the received frame for a match according to preconfigured matching rule).
With respect to claim 4, Yoshida teaches wherein the one or more information regions include at least one selected from a group consisting of a broadcast information region, a constrained device information region, a shared device information region, and an unconstrained device information region (Fig. 5; page 7, paragraph 0032 disclose the hardware accelerator circuit 6 checking the data content within at least one field of the plurality of fields within the received frame including a manufacturer ID).
With respect to claim 5, Yoshida teaches wherein the information regions are associated with specific device types of one or more utility devices within the utility system (Fig. 5; page 7, paragraph 0032 disclose the hardware accelerator circuit 6 checking the data content within at least one field of the plurality of fields within the received frame including a manufacturer ID).
With respect to claim 6, Yoshida teaches wherein the utility device is one of a constrained device and an unconstrained device (page 7, paragraph 0041 disclose all metering devices 1-i can be battery-operated devices).
With respect to claim 7, Yoshida teaches wherein the constrained device has a limited power source (page 7, paragraph 0041 disclose all metering devices 1-i can be battery-operated devices).
With respect to claim 8, Yoshida teaches wherein the limited power source is a battery (page 7, paragraph 0041 disclose all metering devices 1-i can be battery-operated devices).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEIKH T NDIAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-3914. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOON H HWANG can be reached at 571-272-4036. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHEIKH T NDIAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
2/17/2026